Tutorials for Children by Children: Design and Evaluation of a Children's Tutorial Authoring Tool for Digital Art
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital art tools allow children to express their creativity and can help them develop important skills. There are numerous software tutorials available to help teach and inspire digital art enthusiasts, however, most are authored for and by adults. Given that children are increasingly contributing online digital content, in this paper, we investigate a tutorial authoring design concept where children can capture their drawings and information on their process, with the long-term objective of allowing children to share both their creativity and their workflows with other children. Through participatory design sessions, prototyping, and an evaluation, we explore children's attitudes towards the creation of digital art tutorials, focusing on their perceived incentives to author such tutorials and how they feel about the concept of sharing their tutorials with other children. We also elicit reactions towards specific design elements. Our findings suggest important considerations for tools designed to motivate and support children's creation of digital art tutorials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it